Courts and Criminal Matters Bill

This is quite serious; I cannot believe how quickly that last part went through. I would hate to think that that debate had been curtailed for any reason to do with the fact that we are here at 4.35 on a Friday afternoon and someone has some arrangements—because this is a serious debate. The debate on Part 6 had gone for 20 minutes when Mr English, who had not participated in the debate previously, sought the call and was ignored. I would hate to think that that is what is going on. Frankly, this debate should go on a lot longer. Mr Tisch and, I hope, more Opposition members, will be down here contributing to it. I do not want someone’s arrangements in his or her electorate curtailing the debate on Part 7 of this bill.

This is an important bill, because it makes changes to the way in which people are paid reparation. At the moment, if someone has several reparation orders against him or her—say that person has 10 reparation orders—and pays $1 of reparation to the court, that $1 is split amongst the 10 people and they get 10c each. This bill proposes to set some rules for reparation. If, for example, someone’s reparation orders all relate to the one circumstance—if, for example, that person bashed up several people or burgled one house and got several reparation orders relating to that—those orders will all be paid on a pro rata basis—$1 is paid, and 10c goes to each person.

But if the offender has a never-ending series of reparation orders, because he or she has smashed up people’s property, belted people up, and stolen stuff from them, the reparation orders will now be paid in the order in which the offences took place. So the person with the oldest reparation order will be paid first, rather than getting only 10c. This means that every subsequent victim of the offender will have to wait.

This is a really big problem. We have a whole lot of career criminals whom this Government keeps letting out of prison on parole, who are continuing to offend. The House will be shocked to know that one individual has 92 orders to pay victims—92 reparation orders. About 20 people have over 40 reparation orders. A whole lot of bad people are getting out of prison early, having served one-third of their sentence, reoffending while on parole, and getting all these reparation orders—huge numbers of them.

The amendments being made here are quite serious. We have close to 7,000 people who owe money under reparation orders to more than one person, so what is proposed is quite a serious amendment and quite a big change.

The National Party says that it is all very well for the Government to pass a bill that will change the order in which people who are owed reparation are paid, but let us do more to get the money in the door to start with. Over $22 million owed to victims of crime is going uncollected. Some of that debt is quite outstanding. Some of the debt that is owed in reparations has been outstanding for ages, and not enough is being done to collect it. I totally reject the proposals in Part 8 of this bill, which we will be talking about later.

A lot of people owe reparation. We are talking about huge amounts. Some people owe over $100,000 of reparation. Many owe over $2,000 of reparation. More should be done to get this money in. The Government is simply not taking advantage of every opportunity to get more information from Government departments to help locate these people. We should be telling the Inland Revenue Department to give us every piece of information it has that could help us locate these people. We should be telling the New Zealand Customs Service to give us every piece of information that it has in order to locate those people. It should be the same in respect of the Immigration Service—every piece of information. We should not be limiting ourselves to phone numbers and addresses of current employers and of the individuals themselves.

The Government is not really very serious, because if it were serious, would it be bringing in a bill under urgency that would stop 117 people from getting on a plane? Maybe, or maybe not, because that is the situation.

I am pleased to be able to talk on Part 7, having been a recipient of reparation. Having received those letters in the mail so long after the offence occurred that I could not remember what it was about, I then received, even more months later, some single-figure amount. The reparation that I am talking about related to a young man who went about the Invercargill Airport car-park smashing car windows. I have to say I was reasonably impressed that someone found him, that he went to a family group conference, and that anything happened at all. I think the people involved deserved some credit for that. I am sure that his case was one that would have been considered when a policy for Part 7 was being considered. A lot of windows were smashed, and even if that young man paid what I imagine to be several hundred dollars—maybe $400 or $500—so many windows were smashed that we were all recipients of quite a small amount of money.

Although the detail of this provision will continue to be debated in the Committee stage, I think we need to acknowledge that under the current Government no one who is involved in criminal activity feels any particular pressure or obligation to pay anything for any reason. That is why $22 million of outstanding reparations is owed to victims, and that is on top of the figure that appalled me, which was that there is $640 million in unpaid fines—a much larger number than it was 4 or 5 years ago, and involving not only a good number of hardened criminals but tens of thousands of people. It is quite clear that the measure in Part 7, as with those in Part 6, is intended to try to turn a tide that has built up momentum and will not be turned by those particularly detailed measures. That tide is the tide of slackness and unconcern that the Government has about the effects of criminal behaviour, particularly on the victims of criminal behaviour. If $22 million is owed to victims, then I agree with my colleague Mr Ryall that the Government ought to be doing a great deal more to get that money.

The problem with the reality of someone having 92 reparation orders is that it undermines the integrity of the whole system. Victims will have faith in the process only if they see it being prosecuted vigorously. In my case, I was surprised that anything happened at all, and it must have taken some 18 months. I would have to say that my faith in the forces of law and order would have been much greater—in fact, I would have been impressed—if something had happened within a few months, or even within 4 or 5 months. As it happened, it took about 18 months. That is why the Government is having to run around with measures like Part 7 and, previously, Part 6, trying to stick its finger in the dyke and trying to bring some credibility to a system in which victims and criminals do not believe that the people who run those systems and who provide political leadership really take them seriously.

So I suppose that it is with some grudging acceptance that we note that the Government is making some changes here. Those changes may make some difference. It is possible that some victims will get more reparation out of this measure, but it is only trying to slice up in a different way the relatively small proportion of reparation orders that are actually fulfilled. People are not going to feel any overwhelming need or pressure to fulfil those orders.

I can understand why the Government wants to put this measure through under urgency, because when one studies what the Government is doing, one sees that it is basically saying to Parliament that we need to change the law because the present system is not working. If I am reading this part correctly—the ACT party was not on the Law and Order Committee—it appears to me that the problem is this. Crime is running out of control, and there are repeat offenders. A person who has committed an offence and been ordered to pay reparation may commit another offence in order to pay that reparation, and that person then cannot afford to make the two reparation payments. So we now have a system to decide the order in which the payments should be made. I think that that is the purpose of Part 7.

Of course, the Government is not asking a much more basic question: how is it that we have a criminal system whereby people, despite having been caught, having gone through the court system, and having had a penalty imposed on them, then go out and commit another crime? I think Mr English put his finger on one of the reasons, which is the length of time it takes between being convicted and going through the court system. He mentioned his case, and that causes me to say that I know of one as well. I had the misfortune to be burgled in October last year. The offender was caught. I received a note from someone in the police called the victim support person—I have often felt like a victim, but it was nice to get a letter from that nice person—who told me that the offender had finally been sent to jail 10 days ago. In fact, I received a note asking me to ring the police. I thought: “Oh my God!”; I had completely forgotten about the burglary. The burglar was a relatively young man who had committed a string of offences, which is why he had been sent to jail. But the point is, as Mr English said to us, the offence was committed so long ago that he could not really empathise with it—and Mr English is a mature man. To an 18-year-old, 6 months ago seems like forever, and that would be a very quick processing time after an offence is committed.

I have been to New York and looked at how the police there have changed their system. I saw people who had been arrested that morning be processed by the court that day. They were going to be on the streets that afternoon, having to pick up litter while wearing a sign that stated: “Manhattan community court”. That would make some progress. If we had a system whereby people were being charged and processed within a day—as the Americans can do—and were then being required to do reparation that day for an offence that had been committed against someone on the previous day, that system would work.

I say to the Government that we all know this bill will not work. We know that the earlier provision will cost more money to put in place than we will collect back in fines, and I do not believe that anyone in the Committee, including the wettest Government member, actually thinks that setting out a priority order in which people have to pay back reparations will somehow result in a better criminal system. It will not. Even the Government knows that, which is why it is putting it through on Friday afternoon, and hoping that nobody is listening to this debate. What we actually need is some fundamental reform of our legal system. We know that $650 million worth of fines is outstanding, and also $900 million worth of liable parent contributions, and $22 million worth of reparation. The figure for reparation seems to me to be a very low figure, and I suspect that it is wrong. I suspect that the real figure is much higher than that. But the Government is uninterested in reparation, because those payments actually go to citizens, and not into the greedy Government’s coffers. I suspect the real figure for reparation is far higher than that.

I say to the Committee that we will not vote against this measure, because it will not make things worse. But it certainly will not make them any better, either, and no victim will feel better to learn that he or she cannot be paid back.

It was interesting to listen to that previous contribution, because a lot of very sensible advice was given to the Minister for Courts. I noticed that the Minister was not taking much notice, but he should probably be reminded of a few figures, because I doubt whether he understands them. My colleague the Hon Tony Ryall mentioned them earlier. Outstanding at the present time are 92 reparation orders that affect 7,000 people and total $22 million—but the Hon Richard Prebble has said that he suspects that that figure is not right.

I say to the Minister that prior to this bill being debated under urgency, we had the debate on the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill (No 2). People from all parties were in the Chamber, roaring like lions about what could be done in that regard. Some of them are Government supporters on most occasions, but they were opposing what could be done—so they supported the terrorists, I guess one could argue. But those who will go out in the next election campaign, stand on podiums, thump the table, and talk about what they will do in terms of law and order, catching crims, and suchlike, have an opportunity actually to do something here today, right now, in the Committee stage—where the rubber meets the road, where the legislation is formed, where we have an opportunity to debate and amend the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill, and where we can actually do something about those crims. And what have we got? We have the ACT party taking calls to make contributions, and the National Party making contributions, but there is not a peep from anybody else. The only thing we have from Government members is the closure motion.

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: Where’s United Future, the “common-sense” party?

That is right. My colleague asks about the “common-sense” party, which was roaring up and down the country at last election, and was going to fix criminal law in this country. Its members are supporters of the Government, and they have the numbers to actually change the law now. They have the opportunity, but none of them is making a contribution to this debate at the moment. The Minister is introducing a wet bus-ticket process, and nobody is doing a thing about it.

So I suggest to the Minister that in the Committee stage, at the moment, he should move an amendment that would actually do something about the matter—as the Hon Richard Prebble said, something that would be meaningful with regard to developing an incentive for those who go out and commit crime to take some responsibility for their actions. This is a classic example of members talking tough and voting soft. It is the old Phil Goff approach—talk tough, and vote soft. I tell the Minister in the chair, Rick Barker, that he should make a name for himself, establish himself, and do something—change the law right here and now, and make it a bit tougher for those crims. He should make them front up and pay what they are owing.

As it stands at the moment, something like $22 million worth of outstanding fines is out there on the never-never. They may be processed at some stage, but people can pay “in order of preference”. That is another bit of the legislation that is certainly not just, and justice does need to be seen to be done. We have people who have a string of criminal offences. One, as I said, has 92 reparation orders against him. The people towards the bottom of the preference heap may get 10c a week if they are lucky, and those even further down the line will get something in 50 years’ time if the crim is still around and still able to pay.

So I ask the Minister to take a call, and explain to us why he will not take the advice given to him by senior members of Parliament. My colleague Tony Ryall made quite a few good suggestions to him, about areas where he could do something, where it is possible to do something. The Minister will be campaigning in a month or so, saying he will do something, and here he can do something. I urge United Future members to get up, take a call, and tell the Minister what they would do in these circumstances, and if the Minister will not do it, they should withhold their vote so that he will do it. But “Do something!” is what I say to the Minister and to those other parties. I am wondering—and I am sure others are—why Keith Locke has not been down to take a call on this part, because clearly he had a great interest in the previous bill.

I move, That the question be now put.

I have taken a great deal of interest in Part 7, and I have read the entire part verbatim, which is something members of Parliament do not often get the chance to do. It seems to me that it is one of the best examples of the situation when more than two full pages of a bill state just one simple thing. Maybe the Minister can tell me whether I have it wrong, but I believe that basically the part just states that if an offender has more than one reparation order out, and if the orders are for the same offence, then the payments to be made should be split equally amongst those who are owed. If the offender has orders for different offences, then they should be paid out in the order in which they occurred.

I ask the Minister whether draughtspeople get paid by the word. I mean, why was it not possible to say in two sentences: “We will split the payments; and if it is the same offence the payments will be equal, and if it is one offence before the other, then the first offence gets paid out.”?

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: They wouldn’t want that to be public.

Well, maybe they do not want that to be public. I do not quite know, but I have to say that when I read that, and when I look at legislation like this, I keep thinking: “Why do we encumber this place with such enormous volumes of verbiage, when in fact it is just a simple thing to say?”. If that is not the case, then I would really like to know. The Minister could easily take a call to explain whether there is something more devious or more well hidden.

I notice that there is a lovely little section 145C, “No Crown liability for error, etc, in applying payments of amounts of reparation”, inserted by clause 22. I have to say that that will increasingly become a common practice in this Government’s legislation—a clause that says there is no Crown liability for Government error—because this week we have seen the biggest Government error that has ever occurred in this country, in the miscalculation of our Kyoto forest credits. The Government told us it was worth $500 million per year—that is what Pete Hodgson said. He asked whether the National Party Opposition was prepared to tear up a cheque for $500 million per year. It turns out that it is actually a bill for $1 billion per year.

I am sure that if any legislation is to surround the Kyoto Protocol, Marian Hobbs will be listening very carefully and looking at that section and saying that yes, it is a section she wants to put into any Kyoto legislation in the future. It states: “No Crown liability for error, etc,”—I love that “etc”! It is not just for the errors—it is for anything.

💬 Shane Ardern: Does it include stupidity?

I guess that is a question we should ask this Minister—does the “etc” include incompetence, or sheer stupidity? Let us remember that if this goes to a court—if there is an error on behalf of the Crown—the judge will look at this section: “No Crown liability for error, etc, in applying payments of amounts of reparation”. That is the heading. The actual provision states: “The Crown is not liable to any person for any error, omission, or delay in applying any payment of an amount of reparation in accordance with section 145A or section 145B.” Section 145A and section 145B were the two sections I referred to before. They state that reparation is split equally if it is for the same offence to more than one person, and that it is split in sequential order to the first person and the second person. Honestly, how much belt and braces does the Minister need to give himself to keep the Government safe?

💬 Shane Ardern: I don’t think it’s enough.

In this Minister’s case it is probably not. But I can see the gleeful look on Marian Hobbs’ face. I know that she would have got on to officials immediately and said that she wants this provision in any Kyoto legislation in the future. The Crown will not be liable for any error of calculation.

💬 Lindsay Tisch: Etc.

Etc.! I am very tempted to move in a minute, if there is another speaker in this part, to add “any error, omission, delay, incompetence, or just sheer bungling, on behalf of the Minister”. I think the courts may—

💬 Shane Ardern: I don’t think “etc.” is in there.

No, the member is wrong; “etc” is already in there. But I think “error, omission, or delay”, needs to have an extended list added to it, and I hope the Government will accept my amendments that incompetence and sheer, complete bungling on behalf of the Minister should also be a reason why there should be no Crown liability. Because if we are going to have the legislation the way it is, then surely that is what it is now. The Minister could easily tell us why it takes more than two full pages of a bill to state something that I think could be stated in two sentences flat—in fact, common sense would say that if one were splitting reparations they should be split between two people if there are more than one person, or three people if there are more than two, etc. Why, if there was one order that existed from long ago—

💬 Lindsay Tisch: What about four?

Mr Tisch is now testing me, because I know that the moment he wants me to answer in respect of four, there will be some bright spark who wants to take it to five, and beyond that I cannot count, so I am not going to get into that.

I move, That the question be now put.